Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: OWK
I think you're being dismissive, because you have no answer to the question, and don't wish to confront it honestly.

Pardon me if I made the wrong assumption about the premise of your question. But I think my original point stands--we can posit a "creator for the creator" and a "designer for the designer" back in an infinite chain of causation, but until you're willing to make that very first link between life and a designer, it's a moot point.

35 posted on 12/18/2001 5:48:32 PM PST by Map Kernow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]


To: Map Kernow
we can posit a "creator for the creator" and a "designer for the designer" back in an infinite chain of causation, but until you're willing to make that very first link between life and a designer, it's a moot point.

But you have made the first link between life, and a designer. And in fact, you appear (at least to me) to be suggesting that the complexity of life suggests to you, that a designer is requisite.

And so I'm asking YOU (who have made the link) how you can suggest that a designer is requisite to explain the complexity of life, but that the even greater complexity of the designer himself, doesn't require a designer?

What is your explanation?

37 posted on 12/18/2001 5:53:22 PM PST by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson